Again I aver that methodological naturalism reduces the scope of inquiry for science and therefore it cannot investigate truth. That is the domain of theology and philosophy.
Mathematics has no such boundaries, nor does it have a problem with the epistemic divide.
You are strictly, by your own admission, a religious apologist. You should not even presume to hold scientific opinions because you do not meet the qualifications for doing so.Such attempts to impeach my credibility are merely amusing.
Again I aver that methodological naturalism reduces the scope of inquiry for science and therefore it cannot investigate truth. That is the domain of theology and philosophy.
The only point I have been discussing is your credibility in the fields of science. You keep making statements about science, but you have, by your own posts, shown that you do not have the qualification (adherence to the scientific method) to make those statements.
This is further demonstrated by a comment you made a few weeks ago, "The most certain - and therefore, highest priority - type of knowledge for me is divine revelation."
Because you have abandoned the scientific method, and have accepted "divine revelation" as the most certain type of knowledge, you are absolutely unqualified to make pronouncements about science.
Further, you have given up the one tool you could have used to objectively compare and evaluate "divine revelations" -- of which millions are claimed. You are left with your own personal belief system and no way to evaluate it against others' belief systems.
You are reduced to claiming your's is the right one because you believe it and using rhetoric, theology, and metaphysics to try to justify your a priori belief.
Please don't mistake that for doing science.